Switch Operator In Fusion?

This tool has a lot of potential. In my mind especially in a stereo workflow. I don't like the instancing approach that much, and I'd rather try and see if using a switch wouldn't be more elegant. Obvious use for a switch in this type of setup would be for each pair of loaders coming in, but also for each deviation of a node. Only thing needed right now is something like a "renderer" node, that, if previewed or rendered, would flip all the switch fuses to the proper input number for Left and Right viewing/rendering.

Going to talk about it and see if we can come up with something like that at work. This will be a good starting point, so thanks a lot Stefan. Hope to report back with good news and a working set of tools.

Hi Kristof! Thanks a lot!
You could add an expression to the switch slider and connect it to a checkbox somewhere else that is either 0 or 1. Via the User Controls script you could also create a multi button that is labled "left" and "right".

But if you only need two inputs to switch between, you could also use the Dissolve node and connect its slider to a checkbox. My Fuse, I think, doesn't support DoD yet, so the Dissolve tool will actually be faster in bigger comps.

Congrats on your 1000th post, Stefan! And thanks guys for joining in and posting your thoughts re this stereo switch. Don't know yet if the pros will outweigh the cons. We'll see and I'll get back to you.

This is one of those times i wish we could have different pipe view options (heck even tagging of pipes to be part of a view set or something would be cool), so you can switch between say, all visible, hide by view set or individual.

I find wireless tools making comps quite unreadable (same with the hidden image input of say a probe), then again, some comps turn into cobwebs that would even scare John Goodman

Tags for pipes would be interesting indeed. But would a node have to tag its upstream or downstream links? Is it like Metadata? So you could highlight upstream connections based on "has timecode metadata"? What would a merge do? Merge these tags as well? Hm.. The merge could already have a "Use Metadata From BG/FG/Both" option... That's gonna become tangled as well.

(insert image with dude and spikey hair) :-)

The hidden inputs wouldn't be so nasty if there was a warning if you are about to delete a node that is secretly needed somewhere else.

What I would like to see is a mode, like "Show Tile Picture", but rather "Show Hidden Connections". You could also have a flow option like "Force Active Show Hidden Connections" that would show for the active tool. You probably don't want to see all the connections all the time, just like you don't want to see all the tile pictures all the time.

What I would like to see is a mode, like "Show Tile Picture", but rather "Show Hidden Connections". You could also have a flow option like "Force Active Show Hidden Connections" that would show for the active tool. You probably don't want to see all the connections all the time, just like you don't want to see all the tile pictures all the time.

This sounds cool! It reminds me, however, that from the dozens of options in the flow's context menu, I never change anything. It would be a godsend to be able to customize this menu: Mockup_contextmenu.png16.29KB23 downloads